VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (letter).

Symbolic laws

January 27, 2004|By Scott Petersen.

Wilmette — This is regarding "The Wilmette gun case" (Editorial, Jan. 19). The Wilmette Village Board insists that its ban on handguns is for safety reasons despite a statistical zero in handgun accidents, suicides and domestic violence over the years. The editorial, on the other hand, astutely observed that the Wilmette handgun ordinance is really a symbol and added that such symbolic legislation should stand because it is a step toward gun control. The Tribune has thus embraced a position that criminalizing lawful activity--even if adopted only to make a political statement--is just fine.

While the Tribune glides over the fact that we already have layers of gun control, one has to question the wisdom of symbolic ordinances that are passed by small ruling cliques in the name of the public good.

Is it desirable to have a patchwork of symbolic ordinances that criminalize otherwise lawful acts? Should a village board criminalize the wearing of fur coats, the owning of large dogs or the possession of certain reading materials because those on the board want to make a statement? How about criminalizing the possession or sale of all alcoholic beverages or tobacco products within the village limits? Alcohol and tobacco arguably do involve safety issues. Shall we encourage activist village trustees to ban logging, nuclear weapons, spear fishing or SUVs? Good symbolic gestures, but do we require local intrusion and regulation on activities that are otherwise perfectly legal?

The Wilmette handgun ordinance is not about handguns. It is about a village government criminalizing the acts of honest citizens when such acts are perfectly lawful in nearly every other jurisdiction of our nation. It is not necessary to have the long arm of government enter our homes to criminalize otherwise lawful activity just to trumpet a political statement.